I should not have to explain English to someone on this forum but here goes:
The context of what I was directly replying to, user says "AAm3 “is not rly 40g”
I say: “How isn’t it?” which means I am asking him “how is the AAM3 not a 40g missile”
This means I am saying the stat IS 40g for g-tolerance… because it is…
You then go on to insert the separate idea you created in your head that I was saying the missile “pulls like a 40g missile!!!111” like I’m some plebian who again, still thinks g-tolerance is the predominant factor in missile agility.
Asking someone to explain their statement is not normally used as a method of agreement. Especially when the question is done in an open manner such as yours. You should’ve initially specified upper G-tolerance and not left it ambiguos if you wanted to specify that you were arguing with it as a theoretical upper maximum; Given the discussion so far had been on effective turning performance.